New antibiotic rules paired with rural vet shortage leave livestock producers struggling with care

Cattleman Rollin Head finds the new antibiotic guidance
and vet shortage a challenge. (Photo by B. Haynes, FP)

To stem antimicrobial resistance in livestock, the Food and Drug Administration moved to transition most livestock antibiotics from over-the-counter to prescription only, leaving some food animal farmers in a lurch because there are not enough rural veterinarians, reports Betty Haynes of Farm Progress.

The FDA's Guidance for Industry 263 (GFI 263) began about six months ago. "Part of that guidance says livestock producers have to establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship or VCPR. Nikki Johnson, veterinarian and Illinois State Veterinary Medicine Association president, says livestock producers should be proactive about establishing a VCPR because it's now required by law. A VCPR is valid for 12 months, allowing the veterinarian and livestock producer to work together on a herd health and emergency plan for farm visits or telemedicine consults."

In theory, that sounds like good medicine, but some farmers have found it difficult to manage. "For Rollin Head, Blue Mound, Ill., GFI 263 plus the rural vet shortage has pressured him to change how he handles and administers antibiotics," Haynes writes. "Although Head has a relationship with his veterinarian, he's resorted to performing most of his own vet work because the nearest vet clinic is often constrained by time and staffing limitations. Head says recently he's also been fighting vaccine backorders — adding another layer of frustration and forcing him to frequently change his vaccine protocols."

Head told Haynes, "I know these restrictions were put in place to eliminate antibiotic misuse, but it's a hindrance for cattlemen. If there isn't a vet in your area, that creates a pretty big problem since time is of the essence when treating cattle."

There is some proactive work that Head has found helpful "for livestock producers navigating the realities of vet oversight," Haynes reports. Head's best practices include:

• Establish a VCPR so both parties understand the farm's location, needs and animals.
• Communicate quickly when emergencies occur so vets can schedule accordingly.
• Maintain a proactive vaccination protocol to reduce unnecessary illness.
• Invest in good facilities so vets can safely and efficiently perform farm visits.

The land holds more than food; it contains medical breakthroughs and new medicines

"The soil is the great connector of our lives, the source and destination of all." --- Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America, 1977

The Scoop chart

The land Berry is talking about does more than bind us together, it contains gifts that stretch beyond food. Seventy-five years ago, in Sanborn Field soil plot #23 in Columbia, Missouri, the soil yielded an incredible medical breakthrough, reports Tyne Morgan of The Scoop. Before this discovery, physicians used penicillin alongside other antibiotics with mixed results. In the 1940s, scientists pushed to find more effective and non-toxic microorganisms for people or animals.

Dr. Tim Reinbott, the director of Sanborn Field at the University of Missouri, told Morgan: "Seventy-five years ago, we had known about penicillin and other types of antibiotics, but they were only about 40% effective. . . . [Scientists]were looking for that golden antibiotic, that one that would really be very effective and be taken orally, not by injection. . . . Benjamin Duggar was working for Lederle Laboratories at the time, and he knew the director of Sanborn Field, who was William J. Albrecht, who was the soil microbiologist. Duggar asked him for some soil samples from Sanborn Field so that he could begin to culture for these microorganisms."

Duggar's soil samples "contained a golden mold that suppressed the growth of many microorganisms, including streptococci, a bacteria that causes various types of infections," Morgan writes. "From the sample, researchers eventually created aureomycin, which proved to be an antibiotic effective against 90% of bacteria-caused infections in humans." Bob Kremer, adjunct professor of soil microbiology at the University of Missouri, told Morgan, "One of the interesting facts that is often overlooked is that in any soil, you will find antibiotics, because it's just the nature of how these bacteria survive in nature."

The Food and Drug Administration approved aureomycin for human illness in 1948, and "Reinbott says for the first 30 to 40 years after the discovery of aureomycin, it was the go-to antibiotic for human medicine, but it also grew in popularity within animal medicine," Morgan reports. 

"To celebrate the discovery of aureomycin, a soil sample from Plot 23 was sent to the Smithsonian Institution, where it still resides today," Morgan writes. "The discovery at Sanborn Field wasn't just a breakthrough for human medical science, it was also a breakthrough for livestock. . . . aureomycin is still widely used in cattle today. Such an antibiotic discovery is estimated to cost $1.5 billion in 2023."

Standing at Sanborn Field, Reinbott told Morgan: "We've more aureomycin discoveries out here -- we've just got to look for them. It may or may not be an antibiotic, but it can be something just as groundbreaking, and that's what gets me excited."

New dairy industry lawsuit has state farmers worried about tainted water; a lot of the problem is from ag activities

CAFOs produce tremendous waste.
(Photo by Amber Kipp, Unsplash)

Where there are cows, there's plenty of manure. And in Wisconsin, residents, including many farmers, don't want animal waste in their water systems. "Farmers are worried for statewide water quality and public health after the dairy industry filed a lawsuit to eliminate the only protection that Wisconsin has against contamination" from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),  reports Ahna Renee Fleming of The Daily Yonder. "Some CAFOs can produce as much waste as a small city, but without comparable waste management infrastructure, rural communities face health, economic, and environmental hazards."

Wisconsin CAFOs must get a permit before disposing of manure and waste. "The lawsuit argues that the Department of Natural Resources exceeds their statutory authority by regulating CAFOs and their potential waste discharges rather than the actual amount of waste discharged," Fleming writes. "The Wisconsin Farmers Union released a statement in opposition, saying that this lawsuit could eliminate the 'primary source of environmental oversight of CAFOs in Wisconsin.'"

CAFOs are massive operations that produce tremendous waste. Adam Voskuil, lead agricultural attorney at Midwest Environmental Advocates, told Fleming, "I don't know that people always understand or appreciate the size of some of these things." Zach Raff, an economist at the Department of Agriculture, told Fleming: "A dairy operation that has 1,200 cows produces the same amount of waste as a city with about 46-47,000 people. . . .The difference is that cities have wastewater treatment plants, where there are filtration systems and health measures put in place to make sure that contaminants aren't reaching water bodies. That doesn't happen at CAFOs."

"According to a report by the National Association of Local Boards of Health, CAFO manure contains plant nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, but it also contains pathogens like E. coli, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals added to the manure or used to clean equipment, animal blood, silage leachate from corn feed, and copper sulfate used in footbaths for cows," Fleming reports. "The contaminants – nitrates and bacteria in particular – seep down to the groundwater. And when it rains, the contaminants run off directly into the surface water."

When ground and surface water get contaminated, the negative consequences for rural communities are profound, and Wisconsinites are particularly vulnerable. Voskuil told Fleming: "Wisconsin residents and communities rely on groundwater to a much higher level than most other states. . . . MEA receives calls regularly from folks around the state who are dealing with really dire circumstances as a result of these extractive industries. . . . The Wisconsin DNR has a Groundwater Coordinating Council that puts out a report. . . . [The report] has noted that nitrate contamination in groundwater is increasing in severity and frequency across the state. About 90%, maybe a bit more of it, is caused by agriculture in the state."

Two companies receive USDA approval to sell lab-grown meat; food-safety oversight is the same as for natural meat

Chicken bites made from cell-cultured chicken (Photo from Eat Just via NBC)

The Department of Agriculture has given two new companies approval to sell artifically grown meat. Good Meat and Upside Foods "make what they call 'cultivated chicken'," reports Danielle Wiener-Bronner of CNN. "Good Meat, which is owned by plant-based egg substitute maker Eat Just, said that production is starting immediately. . . . Cultivated or lab-grown meat is grown in a giant vat, much like what you'd find at a beer brewery."

The new option may have potential customers wondering about food safety. Good Meat has been selling its cultivated chicken in Singapore since 2020. The USDA defined its oversight yesterday: "Cell-cultured meat and poultry food products are subject to the same Food Safety and Inspection Service's regulatory requirements and oversight authority as meat and poultry food products derived from the slaughter of amenable species."

It has taken several years, but cultured-meat developers have gained the capital for commercialization. "Investors have poured some $2 billion into the space in the last two years, according to Crunchbase data," Kate Rogers of NBC News reports. To investors and consumers, the technology has been marketed as a "more humane approach to eating meat," Wiener-Bronner explains. "Good Meat advertises it as 'meat without slaughter.' Supporters hope that cultured meat will help fight climate change by reducing the need for traditional animal agriculture, which emits greenhouse gases."

The next step is seeing how the public, especially chefs, respond. Good Meat "announced that it was partnering with chef and restaurateur José Andrés to bring the item to a Washington, D.C., restaurant," Wiener-Bronner reports. "As production ramps up, Good Meat may consider partnering with other restaurants or launching in retail . . . . Upside is planning to introduce its product ... at a San Francisco restaurant [and] plans to work with other restaurants and make its products available in supermarkets."

There is already pushback from "traditional meat producers, such as the U.S. Cattlemen's Association," reports Amelia Lucas of NBC. Americans will have to accept cultured meat as actual food, which is not guaranteed. Educating U.S. consumers takes time, but the product does have nutritional benefits. Lucas reports, "[It] has a high protein content and a diversified amino acid composition, no antibiotics and very low microbiological content, such as salmonella and E. coli."

Livestock antibiotics will need a veterinarian's prescription

Photo by Harry Grout, Unsplash

Beginning in June, livestock farmers must change how they obtain antibiotics. "Most over-the-counter livestock antibiotic medications will no longer be available for purchase without a veterinary prescription," reports Courtney Love of Successful Farming. "Since 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has been trying to bring all approved livestock antibiotics under veterinary oversight. . . . This is the final phase of the FDA’s Guidance on livestock antibiotic labels."

It is also the end of a long battle to regulate the use of antibiotics in animals, driven by concern that overuse of the drugs encouarges the evolution of pathogens that are resistant to them.

Jennifer Roberts, a veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim, told Love, "The public has an interest in what farmers are doing to care for livestock, and there's an expectation that we are going to use antibiotics judiciously with livestock . . . . This regulation allows us to have a little more input on the farm and to have conversations with farmers about following medication protocol. . . . It will allow farmers to communicate directly with their veterinarian when using those products, making sure they're using the correct dose and following the appropriate withdrawal time."

Love explains, "Most over-the-counter medication for any species of livestock, including cattle, will be affected by this new rule. . . . However, there will be some exceptions for vaccines, dewormers, fly control. . . .The new regulation will also exempt over-the-counter products purchased before the June date and will be honored as an over-the-counter medication until it expires, says Hayley Springer, a veterinarian for Penn State Extension."

In response to the changes, retail farm stores may no longer carry certain medications. "Businesses that sell, dispense, or fill orders for animal prescription drugs must have a state pharmacy permit," Love writes. "Because of this, most brick-and-mortar farm stores might decide not to sell antibiotics once FDA requires a prescription, says Craig Payne, veterinarian, University of Missouri Extension."

Prior to June, farmers will want to prepare. "If a producer doesn’t have a veterinary-client-patient relationship with a local veterinarian, they need to establish one. This means farmers will have to find a veterinarian that is willing to become familiar with their farm and style of animal care by either one examination or timely visits to the farm," Love reports. "Producers should check the requirements in their state, as some areas have stricter guidelines. For example, South Carolina nullifies a farm's veterinary-client-patient relationship if a veterinarian has not seen the farm within one year, says the American Veterinary Medical Association."

"It's a change, but I think farmers will get used to it," Roberts told Love. "For those that have a relationship with a veterinarian, it's going to be an effortless change. For farmers that need to establish a relationship with a veterinarian, it's going to be a positive experience." Love adds, "However, Roberts acknowledges it's a change for most farmers that have valued the convenience of purchasing antibiotics whenever the need arises on their farms."

To thwart overuse of animal antibiotics, farmers will need prescriptions or a legal relationship with a veterinarian

Livestock producers who need to use antimicrobals, a variety of antibiotics important to their industry, will be divided into "the haves and the have nots" by a Food and Drug Administration rule that takes effect June 12, 2023, Rhonda Brooks writes for Farm Journal's AgWeb.

"If you have a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship, you will be able to get a prescription from your veterinarian to purchase antimicrobials from them or a distributor and use them," Brooks reports. "If you don’t have a relationship with a licensed veterinarian, you won’t be able to purchase such products, many of which have long been available over the counter."

The rule applies to "injectables such as penicillin, sulfa-based drugs, boluses, intramammary mastitis tubes and some topical products," Brooks reports. Many other drugs were covered by a similar rule in 2017.

The rules are aimed to prevent overuse of the drugs, which can lead to resistance to them, said Sandra Stuttgen, a veterinarian and associate extension professor at the University of Wisconsin.

“Our survival rates on cancer and (other diseases) are great until a patient gets a secondary bacterial infection and there is not a drug to treat it,” Stuttgen said. “People die or have to have extended hospital stays then, and it becomes very expensive and very emotional. It's a huge social impact.”

Patchwork government oversight makes it difficult to investigate, assess the impact of CAFO pollution

Factory farms produce prodigious amounts of animal waste that, when improperly managed, can contribute to air and water pollution, but inadequate or confusing government oversight makes it difficult to estimate the impact of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, on the environment and rural communities. 

"For decades, scientists have studied the effects that livestock farms with large animal concentrations in Iowa and other states have on regional water quality, as increasing amounts of waste flow into rivers and groundwater. Now activists and some lawmakers say emergency measures are needed to stop toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, and threats to drinking water in rural communities. In some states, lawmakers worry about the future of smaller family farms," Alex Brown reports for Stateline. "Since last year, legislators in at least four states—Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota and Oregon—have proposed moratoriums on new or expanding farms that have more than a certain amount of livestock. None of the proposed bans is expected to become law this year, but the lawmakers say they aim to build momentum."

Efforts to regulate CAFOs face strong opposition from the livestock industry, "which notes that Americans rely on the operations for meat, dairy and eggs," Brown reports.

"CAFOs have been a point of contention between the livestock industry and environmental activists since they began to proliferate in the 1990s, overtaking small, pasture-feeding operations as the dominant form of animal agriculture in the U.S.," Madison McVan reports for the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. "As the number of livestock producers has declined, the number of animals — hogs, cattle and poultry — has skyrocketed over the past several decades, in part due to rapid consolidation in the industry."

But in feeding that many animals, well, what goes in must come out. "One large CAFO can easily produce more than one million tons of manure per year — more than the yearly waste of a large city. ... The animal waste — usually stored in a lagoon or large tank before being spread as fertilizer in crop fields — contains nitrogen, phosphorus and sometimes growth hormones, antibiotics or pathogens such as E. coli. Rainwater can cause lagoons to spill over or wash the manure out of fields and into waterways," McVan reports. "But the full extent of the damage is hard to estimate because the federal government doesn’t keep track of where CAFOs are located. Instead, it’s up to states, researchers and activists to build their own databases." The task is even more difficult because each state has different rules for issuing CAFO permits, in addition to mandatory federal rules. 

In general, any animal feeding operation that discharges waste into federal waterways must get a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency or an EPA-designated state agency, McVan reports. CAFOs that get a permit are added to a database with basic information. The databases, which are considered public records and can be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, allow agencies to quickly pinpoint the source of a pollution event, schedule inspections, and track problem areas.

"The federal government doesn’t require permits for facilities that claim they pose no risk to water quality, however, meaning thousands of CAFOs aren’t included in these databases. When the EPA tried to expand its reach to cover unpermitted facilities, judges ruled the agency cannot require all CAFOs to apply for a permit, effectively barring the federal government from creating a complete register," McVan reports. "Even before lawsuits blocked the EPA from collecting more data on CAFOs, the agency wasn’t adequately studying the environmental impact of their waste, according to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan organization that audits federal agencies. The work of cataloguing these facilities and their environmental impact is left to states, academic researchers and activists, whose combined work has created a patchwork of maps and databases that shed light on the prevalence of CAFOs in the US."

Two-day workshop in Washington will explore changes in use of antibiotics on food animals, and the ramifications

Antibiotic use in food-animal production and related issues will be the focus of a workshop Sept. 6 and 7 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service is organizing the workshop in collaboration with Farm Foundation.

"In the last two years, private companies and producers have been considering when and how antibiotics are used to satisfy consumer demand for products from food animals that have been raised with few or no antibiotics, as well as to comply with the new rules the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has implemented regarding antibiotic use in food animal production," notes a Farm Foundation press release. "This rapidly-changing landscape has also sparked discussion about how to incentive the development of new animal pharmaceutical products to which antibiotic resistance is less apt to develop. Often lacking in these discussions is information about the economic costs and benefits of such initiatives."

ERS Research Economist Stacy Sneeringer says, "In order to be able to make good policy and management decisions, public and private decision makers may benefit from information on the volume of antibiotics used, the costs of reducing antibiotic use and the demand for products produced with fewer antibiotics. But there are challenges surrounding confidentiality, costs and benefits of reducing antibiotic use, as well as in defining appropriate metrics."

The agenda is designed for academics, federal analysts, policymakers, non-profit representatives and industry stakeholders. Here is a tentative agenda. The workshop will include presentation of new research on the economic aspects of changing antibiotic use on U.S. farms, as well as information on collection of data on the sale and use of antibiotics in U.S. food animal production. Other topics to be addressed include: Changes in costs, practices and structures in the U.S. livestock sector and associated industries due to the recent FDA policy changes on antibiotic use in food animal production; consumer demand for products raised without antibiotics and the associated price premiums; challenges of supplying U.S. beef raised with fewer antibiotics; the potential applicability to animal pharma of incentive mechanisms used in human pharma; and analysis of ongoing efforts to collect data on antibiotic use in U.S. food animal production. 

The workshop is free, but registration is required by close of business on Aug. 30. For more information, call Sneeringer at 202-694-5504 or Mary Thompson at Farm Foundation, 630-601-4152.

Fast-food chains are phasing out antibiotics in chickens, but are slow to do so in beef and pork

It's more difficult to ensure that cattle and swine are
raised without antibiotics (Tribune photo: Antonio Perez)

While major fast-food chains such as McDonald's have promised to phase out using chickens that are fed antibiotics, they have been much slower to do likewise with cows and pigs, Samantha Bomkamp reports for the Chicago Tribune. McDonald's, the world's largest burger chain, told Bomkamp it's more difficult to phase out antibiotics in beef and pork, "because it doesn't purchase the entire cow or pig as it does with chickens." The company said that limits its "ability to directly influence change."

McDonald's said it's difficult to monitor cows and pigs, because they often move from farm to farm, leading to a "lack of traceability," Bomkamp writes. Also, McDonald's "buys beef from thousands of ranches, each with an average of just 50 cows," while there are only two main U.S. suppliers of chicken. McDonald's said that with chickens, it "has a clear line of sight from farm to table."

McDonald's also claimed "it could see meat shortages if it moves too quickly to antibiotic-free pork and beef," Bomkamp reports. "While chicken are slaughtered in just weeks, cattle can be two years old when they go to market, leaving far more time in which an animal can get sick. That raises the likelihood that a farmer would need to use antibiotics, even if they weren't using them routinely in the animal's feed as is commonplace in many industrial farms."

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "more than 70 percent of antibiotics important to human medicine in the U.S. are sold for livestock use," Bomkamp writes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization "have said the overuse of antibiotics has led to a global health crisis because the more people are exposed to them, the less effective they are."

N.C. farm experimenting with ways to raise antibiotic-free hogs and decrease farm runoff

Straw is used to soak up urine and feces
(North Carolina Health News photo by Gave Rivin)

Researchers at an experimental farm in Goldsboro, N.C., hope to "show how hogs can be raised without antibiotics in a way that grants them enough space to roam—and that keeps their waste out of open-air lagoons," Gabe Rivin reports for North Carolina Health News. The 142-animal operation is part-research facility, part-demonstration for the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, and a research center run by North Carolina State University, North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University and the state's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

North Carolina, second only to Iowa in pork production, has 8.8 million pigs, mostly in the eastern part of the state, Rivin writes. "To raise such a large number of pigs, many farms rely on concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These facilities raise animals efficiently and economically. Yet with such large numbers of animals, they can also produce an abundant amount of feces and urine. Many large-scale farms store this waste in open-air lagoons or in pits and then spray the treated waste on nearby fields. But this practice has raised researchers’ and residents’ concerns."

One way researchers have cut down on waste is through straw beds, Rivin writes. "The straw is used to soak up the pigs’ urine and feces. It’s how the farmers manage the animals’ waste, and it serves as an alternative to a lagoon system. Eventually, it can also be used as a fertilizer for crops." One drawback to the farm is that raising antibiotic, cage-free animals requires paying closer attention to the animals, which means increased time and labor for workers.

Some experts remain skeptical that new rules for antibiotics in animals will reduce use

New federal guidelines for use of antibiotics in animals, which take effect Jan. 1, may not reduce their use, reports Amy Mayer of Iowa Public Radio after interviewing farmers and agriculture experts.

Under the new rules, "all antibiotics important for human health" must be obtained with written permission from a veterinarian, "similar to a prescription," Mayer notes. "In the past, farmers could buy feed containing antibiotics at the local feed store without even consulting a vet. Now, they can't." One rule requires such vets to visit the farm and be familiar with its operations.

"Some public health officials, doctors and politicians have questioned whether the rules will bring about any meaningful changes," Mayer reports, quoting James Johnson, an infectious-disease doctor at the University of Minnesota: "I frankly am skeptical that we're going to see any drop in amount of drug used or any big shift in which particular drugs are used."

The rules are aimed at stemming the trend of bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics. "It's very clear that these high-antibiotic use, intensive animal operations are great breeding grounds for resistant bacteria," Johnson told Mayer, who adds: "Johnson also recognizes agriculture's argument that there's limited data definitively linking on-farm antibiotic use to resistant infections in humans. The FDA declined to explain just how its new rules will reduce antibiotic resistance. But, in a written statement, told Iowa Public Radio that it's expanding its data collection on the sale and distribution of antibiotics in hopes of better studying the link between farm use and resistance."

Perdue Farms says its chickens have no antibiotics

Wall Street Journal photo by Melissa Golden

Perdue Farms says it has eliminated all antibiotics from its chicken supply, making it the first major poultry supplier to comply with a new federal standard, Jacob Bunge reports for The Wall Street Journal. Producers have faced growing pressure from consumer groups that "prompted big restaurant chains, including McDonald’s Corp. and Subway, to unveil plans in recent years to reduce the use of antibiotics in their chicken supplies, following earlier efforts by companies such as Panera Bread Co. and Chick-fil-A Inc."

Fear has grown that "heavy antibiotic use raises the risk that dangerous bacteria could evolve to resist antibiotics that normally kill them, reducing the effectiveness of medicines that for decades have been a key health defense," Bunge writes. "Perdue’s campaign to stop using antibiotics to raise the roughly 13 million chickens the Salisbury, Md., company processes each week follows concerns raised by U.S. and international health officials about the widespread use of antibiotics in both human and animal medicine."

In 2013 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "called on animal drugmakers to stop permitting the use of antibiotics to speed up animal growth," Bunge writes. Companies agreed to comply by 2017.

Sales of antibiotics for livestock up 23% from 2009 to 2014

Sales of antibiotics for livestock increased 23 percent from 2009 to 2014, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Tom Polansek reports for Reuters. Last year sales increased by 3 percent. "Public health advocates, along with some lawmakers and scientists, have criticized the long-standing practice of using antibiotics in livestock, arguing that it is fueling the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Agribusinesses defend the practice as necessary to help keep cattle, pigs and chickens healthy and to increase production of meat for U.S. consumers."

A study released last month said antibiotic use in animal feed is leading to increased rates of life-threatening infections among children. While many major corporations have said they will phase out antibiotic use in animals raised for food, a September environmental report said most of the top 25 fast food chains have poor policies about antibiotics, with 20 receiving a grade of F.

Antibiotic use in animal feed leading to increased life-threatening infections in children, says study

Antibiotic use in animal feed is leading to increased rates of life-threatening infections among children, especially those under five years old, says a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics published in the journal Pediatrics. Researchers found that 19,056 infections, 4,200 hospitalizations and 80 deaths involving children were reported in 2013 to the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, part of the Centers for Disease Control.

"The incidence of laboratory-confirmed Salmonella infections per 100,000 children was 63.49 in children younger than 5 years of age, 19.33 in children 5 to 9 years of age and 11.26 in children 10 to 19 years of age," states the report. "Salmonella results in 123,452 illnesses, 44,369 physician visits, 4,670 hospitalizations and 38 deaths annually among children younger than 5 years."

Researchers said "infants and children are affected by antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the food supply, direct contact with animals and exposure in the environment," Lisa Rapaport reports for Reuters. "Pediatricians and parents can help combat antibiotic resistance by avoiding use of antibiotics to treat colds or other viral illnesses. Parents and other consumers may also help discourage the use of antibiotics in livestock feed by choosing to buy only organic products or foods labeled as 'raised without antibiotics.'"

Taco Bell not phasing out antibiotics in chickens; customers prefer lower prices to animal welfare

While it's becoming the norm for fast-food chains to commit to switching to chickens raised free of antibiotics and eggs raised from cage-free chickens, Taco Bell has made no such announcements, mostly because it doesn't think it has to, Roberto Ferdman reports for The Washington Post. "All of the brands belonging to Yum! Brands—Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut—were given an F grade in a recent report by six organizations on industry sourcing practices. What's more, it has made no clear promises to fix that."

The closest the company has come to phasing out antibiotics was last year, "when Greg Creed, who used to served as Taco Bell's CEO but now is at the helm of Yum! Brands, told The Wall Street Journal that he would like for Taco Bell and its sister brands to switch to hormone and antibiotic-free meat but that it wasn't currently possible," Ferdman writes. "There hasn't been a peep about animal welfare since."

"More humane farming practices are less efficient and, therefore, more costly," Ferdman writes. While some chains can get away with raising prices, cheap food has always been the sales pitch at Taco Bell. Darren Tristano, who is the executive vice president of a restaurant market research firm called Technomic, told Ferdman, "Taco Bell is at such a low price point, even for fast food, that their value proposition makes it really hard to switch to any sourcing that will affect price."

Ferdman writes, "The simplest explanation, however, is that Taco Bell hasn't followed the industry because it doesn't have to. Its customers are young, like those of its competitors, but they are predominantly male, which, according to Technomic's 2015 food trend report, means they're less likely to care about animal welfare. They also aren't quite as affluent as those who frequent other chains, which, Tristano points out, likely means they are more price sensitive." Tristano told Ferdman, "The lower you get down the price points, the more your consumer has to prefer lower prices to better animal welfare rights. So I think it's also reflection of how Taco Bell's customers feel." (Read more)

Consumers are the rising voice in the agriculture antibiotic fight, states Washington Post editorial

"After decades of inaction, concern about the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is finally gaining traction, not because of federal regulations or congressional legislation, but because smart people around the nation are listening to consumers and thinking creatively about new ways of doing things," states The Washington Post editorial board. "For decades, the agriculture industry has used antibiotics in feed and water to help farm animals grow faster and larger on the same amount of feed and to prevent disease in a whole flock or herd. It is entirely proper to give antibiotics to sick animals. But now there is real movement away from the practice of using them for growth promotion, and the wisdom of using the drugs for prevention is being questioned." (Graphic from the health and environmental report Chain Reaction)

The board cites two recent actions as showing a positive trend toward eliminating antibiotic use. The first is a law signed earlier this month by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) that "will impose restrictions on the use of farm antibiotics starting in 2018," states the editorial. "The law says that antibiotics important in human medicine cannot be used for growth promotion in animals, and it gives veterinarians an important role in decisions about when to use them."

"The law permits the use of antibiotics for prevention when there is an 'elevated risk' of disease spreading, but it prohibits the use of these drugs 'in a regular pattern,'" states the editorial. "What’s impressive about the California example is that the law came about as a result of cooperation among representatives of public health, medicine, government, academia and agriculture. The law also includes civil penalties for violations. It will be important to see how food producers adapt; ideally they will create methods for animal husbandry without antibiotics that could be applied nationwide."

The second action was by Subway, which announced that beginning next year it will "start serving chicken and turkey raised without antibiotics in all of its 27,000-plus outlets in this country," states the editorial. "The company pledged to phase out antibiotic use in pork and beef within a decade. The company made no secret that it was responding to consumer desires, and it thus joins several other major food producers, including Tyson Foods and McDonald’s, in restricting antibiotic use. The market is speaking—and companies are listening." (Read more)

High beef prices leading cattle ranchers to shy away from phasing out antibiotic use

High beef prices are making cattle ranchers reluctant to abandon antibiotic use in livestock, David Kesmodel reports for The Wall Street Journal. "Cattle prices reached all-time highs last year, while U.S. consumers paid a record $6.16 a pound on average for fresh beef in July, up 11 percent from a year earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Oregon cattle rancher Tim Knuths told Kesmodel, “With a real strong market like that, there’s just no advantage to going to a natural program."

While major poultry producers have been phasing out antibiotics, the need to phase out antibiotics in beef is greater, Kesmodel writes. "Beef cattle typically live one to two years before slaughter, providing more time for disease exposure than for chickens, which often live only six weeks. Beef processors also generally have less control over how animals are raised. They typically buy cattle from a wide range of producers and middlemen, while major chicken processors sign growers to contracts to supply them alone." (Journal graphic)

There is more money in going natural, with organic or grass-fed beef varieties—all of which are antibiotic-free—"retailing for 30 percent to 80 percent more per pound than conventional meat," Kesmodel writes. "But ranchers also typically face greater costs and paperwork and must undergo audits to demonstrate they adhere to animal-welfare, sustainability and other standards required by beef buyers or federal labeling rules."

"Recruiting ranchers to produce organic, grass-fed beef—typically the highest-priced variety in stores—is often tough, too," Kesmodel writes. "Raising animals on organically grown grass and hay costs more than conventional U.S. production partly because they take longer to reach slaughter weight. In the U.S. last year, average slaughter weight was 1,330 pounds, according to USDA. Grass-fed cattle generally need 20 to 24 months, while conventional cattle—typically fed a heavy corn diet their final four or five months—need about 16 to 18, said Mack Graves, senior adviser at Panorama Meats, a California-based producer of grass-fed, organic beef."

Limited supplies of antibiotic-free meat—antibiotic-free varieties account for less than 5 percent of the U.S. retail fresh beef market—has led some buyers, like Chipotle Mexican Grill and CKE Restaurants Inc.—which includes Carl’s Jr. and Hardees—to export antibiotic meat from Australia, Kesmodel writes.

Major corporations leading the charge to produce a new bird free of human antibiotics

Several major corporations are leading the charge to change the way chicken is produced in the U.S., producing a new bird that is raised free of human antibiotics, Amanda Mascarelli reports for The Pew Charitable Trusts. Fast food giant McDonald's, which serves 27 million customers daily, has joined the cause, and the nation's largest chicken producer, Tyson Foods, which raises about two billion birds annually—21 percent of the U.S. market—said earlier this year it would also phase out antibiotics. (Pew photo)

Chick-fil-A last year promised "to convert 20 percent of its poultry supply to a 'no-antibiotics-ever' policy for 2015," Mascarelli writes. "Also, in 2014, Perdue Foods, one of the country’s leading chicken-processing companies, said it has removed all antibiotics from its hatcheries and announced that "it has introduced antibiotic-free chicken products for school lunch programs and has committed to a no-antibiotics-ever policy for additional school lunch items sold under various labels."

"In late May, Walmart, the nation’s largest grocery store chain, said it would ask its poultry, meat, seafood, dairy and egg suppliers to report annually on their use of antibiotics following the principles of the American Veterinary Medical Association," Mascarelli writes. "And in June, the White House convened its first forum on how to combat antibiotic resistance. The meeting included 150 food producers, agriculture groups and public health organizations and showed a new focus on the issue by the federal government."

Elizabeth Jungman, director of Pew’s public health projects, told Mascarelli, “This is unprecedented change in a relatively short amount of time. This changes how chickens will be produced for Americans and marks real progress for consumers’ health.”

The change has come about in the past year years after decades of poultry and meat producers "using antibiotics that are essential for people’s health to help promote the growth of their farm animals," Mascarelli writes. "Scientists explain that overuse of these medically important antibiotics enables germs to encounter them repeatedly in the environment and, over time, to become superbugs, by developing mutations that make them resistant to the drugs. People can be exposed to these bugs in soil and groundwater that is fouled with animal waste as well as through contaminated meat."

"A Pew analysis of data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shows that 7.7 million pounds of antibiotics were sold to treat sick people in 2011, compared with 29.9 million pounds sold for food animal production—a number that rose to 32 million pounds in 2012," Mascarelli writes. "An FDA report found that between 2009 and 2013, domestic sales and distribution of medically important antibiotics approved for use in food animal production grew by 20 percent."

Antibiotics used in chicken hatcheries are "injected into eggs to prevent bacteria from getting in during vaccination and causing disease when the chicks hatch," Mascarelli writes. "Chicken, cattle and pigs are routinely fed small amounts of antibiotics to promote growth. Another type of routine antibiotic use in livestock involves feed additives called 'ionophores,' which are thought to increase feed efficiency by as much as 10 percent. Ionophores are not used in human medicine and have not been found to result in resistance to medically important antibiotics." (Read more)

'Astroturf' campaign aimed at newspapers uses same letter to back Obama's move on antibiotics

The same letter, attributed to different local authors, sometimes with slight editing, has been popping up in newspapers across the country in defense of President Obama's plan to phase out antibiotic use in animals, reader Shawn Clubb alerted news-media watcher Jim Romenesko. Clubb, who works at a research and monitoring company, said the letter has appeared in at least 70 papers. It's the latest example of an "astroturf" campaign, which tries to fake grassroots support for a point of view.

The push to eliminate antibiotics has been widespread, with the White House releasing a memorandum earlier this month to phase out antibiotics and more than 150 companies agreeing to phase out use in animals. By the end of the year the Food and Drug Administration is expected to a release a comprehensive set of rules to limit the use of antibiotics in animals.

The letter circulating in papers reads like this, more or less:

"President Obama directed federal agencies to serve antibiotic-free meat and poultry in government cafeterias. The Food and Drug Administration will require animal producers to obtain authorization from a licensed veterinarian to use drugs to treat a specific disease, rather than just to promote rapid growth, as is current practice. As much as 80 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used in animal agriculture.

"The moves come amid growing concern about the link between routine antibiotic use in animal agriculture and human infections by bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics because of their excessive use. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that antibiotic resistance causes 2 million illnesses per year in the U.S. and 23,000 deaths. It also adds $20 billion per year in health care costs and $35 billion in lost productivity.

"And we thought that animal products were just linked to heart disease, cancer and stroke.

"While government agencies reduce antibiotics in animal products, the rest of us can do better with wholesome vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains and a rich variety of plant-based meats, cheeses, milks and ice creams available in every supermarket. These foods contain all the nutrients we require, without the deadly pathogens, antibiotics, carcinogens, cholesterol and saturated fats."

More than 150 companies join White House in agreeing to phase out antibiotics in animals

More than 150 food companies, retailers and human and animal health stakeholders are joining the White House in an effort to combat antibiotic resistance as part of the “White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship,” the White House said in a statement. The event will "bring together key human and animal health constituencies involved in antibiotic stewardship—the development, promotion and implementation of activities to ensure the responsible use of antibiotics."

President Barack Obama will sign a memorandum today directing "Federal departments and agencies to create a preference for meat and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use in the meat supply chain by supporting the emerging market for meat produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies."

The memorandum "directs a three-tiered, phased approach using Federal purchasing authorities to offer options for meats from animals raised according to responsible antibiotic-use policies within Federal agencies’ facilities."

The memorandum includes three phases:

• Initiating a process within 120 days of issuance of the proposed memorandum to make available meats and poultry from animals raised according to responsible antibiotic-use policies in certain Federal cafeterias. The General Services Administration, which operates a significant number of Federal cafeterias, will lead this approach, although other departments and agencies may join.
• Broadening the availability of meats and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies for sale in all Federal cafeterias serving civilian Federal employees by 2018 for poultry and 2020 for other meats, not solely those operated by GSA.
• Developing an acquisition strategy for applying a preference by 2020 in Federal acquisitions for meats and poultry produced according to responsible antibiotic-use policies sold or served in all Federal facilities. 

At the same time, Foster Farms "said it plans to largely eliminate from its poultry supplies all antibiotics used to treat human illnesses, adding to chicken companies’ responses to growing health concerns over antibiotic-resistant bacteria," Jacob Bunge reports for The Wall Street Journal.

"Foster Farms is at least the fourth top U.S. poultry company to unveil plans over the past year to reduce or eliminate the use of antibiotics in their chicken supplies, bowing to growing pressure from consumer groups and public-health officials who have argued that the widespread use of antibiotics in commercial livestock and poultry operations has contributed to a rise in bacteria that have become resistant to such drugs," Bunge writes. "Foster Farms is tied for 10th among U.S. chicken producers by pounds produced, according to meat industry publication Watt Poultry USA."

The top two chicken producers, Tyson Farms and Pilgrim's Pride, have previously released plans to phase out antibiotics. Other major companies that said they would make changes are: Perdue, McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, Panera Bread, Chipotle, Whole Foods and Applegate.